The Fight For Pilots "hurt" By New Age 65 Rule

[mooneyguy]

As reported by Avweb. Should have figure litigation would happen!

Now that U.S. airline pilots can fly to age 65, litigation is now moving forward to overturn wording in the 2007 law that also specifically barred some 3,000 pilots forced into retirement before age 60 from being rehired with their prior pay, position and benefits. Congress last year passed the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act that raised the mandatory retirement age for pilots to a more internationally recognized age of 65, but wording in the law excluded some 3,000 veteran pilots forced to retire between November 23, 2006, and December 17, 2007, from being rehired at their previously held seniority levels. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has brought a motion to have the U.S. Court of Appeals determine the constitutionality of the congressional law before it can be used to dismiss petitions filed on behalf of those pilots forced into retirement. "That motion allows the court to review the law faster than it would have otherwise,"

[WalterSobchak]

Originally Posted by mooneyguy

As reported by Avweb. Should have figure litigation would happen!

Now that U.S. airline pilots can fly to age 65, litigation is now moving forward to overturn wording in the 2007 law that also specifically barred some 3,000 pilots forced into retirement before age 60 from being rehired with their prior pay, position and benefits. Congress last year passed the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act that raised the mandatory retirement age for pilots to a more internationally recognized age of 65, but wording in the law excluded some 3,000 veteran pilots forced to retire between November 23, 2006, and December 17, 2007, from being rehired at their previously held seniority levels. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has brought a motion to have the U.S. Court of Appeals determine the constitutionality of the congressional law before it can be used to dismiss petitions filed on behalf of those pilots forced into retirement. "That motion allows the court to review the law faster than it would have otherwise,"

What a DB. He should stay doing his job.

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I was looking for something to make my blood boil today. I've found it.

[aloft]

Considering how badly those guys have been screwed by the airlines regarding their retirement, I think they should be given every opportunity to work to age 65.

Save the lectures about stagnating movement for everyone else, the rest of us have plenty of time.

[MQAAord]

Mmmm, cake tastes good, especially when one eats it too..........

[Moose17]

Originally Posted by aloft

Considering how badly those guys have been screwed by the airlines regarding their retirement, I think they should be given every opportunity to work to age 65.

Save the lectures about stagnating movement for everyone else, the rest of us have plenty of time.

Is that so? You think the folks who have been furloughed at American have plenty of time? Do guys who retire from the military in their 40s have plenty of time? How would you know who has plenty of time and who does not? That being said, save your lecture.

[Velocipede]

Surprisingly, I'm with the majority here. You can't arbitrarily go back in time and apply the new law to the past.

For example, when they raise drinking ages to 21, you don't automatically grandfather in the people who qualified to drink at age 18 until they turn 21.

From the day the law is in effect, no one under 21 drinks.

Age 65 doesn't preclude those previously eliminated from flying. It just precludes them sueing for their seniority. Age 60 terminated their employment. Age 65 made them re-employable.

But, re-employable means they start out at the bottom of the list, just like every other new hire.

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by aloft

Considering how badly those guys have been screwed by the airlines regarding their retirement, I think they should be given every opportunity to work to age 65.

Save the lectures about stagnating movement for everyone else, the rest of us have plenty of time.

I yi yi. . .

Meet Ladder. . .Pulled Up.

[ppilot]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

Surprisingly, I'm with the majority here. You can't arbitrarily go back in time and apply the new law to the past.

For example, when they raise drinking ages to 21, you don't automatically grandfather in the people who qualified to drink at age 18 until they turn 21.

From the day the law is in effect, no one under 21 drinks.

Age 65 doesn't preclude those previously eliminated from flying. It just precludes them sueing for their seniority. Age 60 terminated their employment. Age 65 made them re-employable.

But, re-employable means they start out at the bottom of the list, just like every other new hire.

Actually (at least in my state) they did grandfather in the people between 18 and 21 and let them keep drinking.

[Doug Taylor]

Originally Posted by Velocipede

Surprisingly, I'm with the majority here. You can't arbitrarily go back in time and apply the new law to the past.

For example, when they raise drinking ages to 21, you don't automatically grandfather in the people who qualified to drink at age 18 until they turn 21.

From the day the law is in effect, no one under 21 drinks.

Age 65 doesn't preclude those previously eliminated from flying. It just precludes them sueing for their seniority. Age 60 terminated their employment. Age 65 made them re-employable.

But, re-employable means they start out at the bottom of the list, just like every other new hire.

Senator Taylor seconds the motion.

[germb747]

by the time this works it way through the courts, these guys will be 65 already.